While it’s true that many industries require grinding, sacrifices, or even going into debt, that doesn’t mean we should use this as a blanket justification for underpaying or undervaluing people. Comparing struggling Tier 2 players to university students going into debt is flawed because students are investing in education with the potential for a stable career afterward. For many Tier 2 players, the pathway to Tier 1 is uncertain and limited, and a vast majority won’t make it. Just saying, “Life’s tough, deal with it,” doesn’t address systemic issues in how Tier 2 is supported.
Yes, Turkey is a great example of a thriving Tier 2 scene, but it’s not the norm—it’s the exception. The reason Turkey’s Tier 2 works is because of regional investment, passionate communities, and strong local orgs. Many other regions lack those factors, and Riot’s approach is very hands-off when it comes to Tier 2 outside of a few key regions. The argument here assumes that what works for Turkey should work for everyone, which isn’t realistic without structural changes.
Riot has done an excellent job with League of Legends, but the Valorant ecosystem is still young and has its own challenges. Relying on Tier 2 as just a talent funnel for Tier 1 might work for Riot’s bottom line, but it risks alienating players and fans who want a vibrant scene at all levels. If Tier 2 players feel unsupported, the talent pipeline could shrink over time, leading to less competition and fewer opportunities for growth.
Your tone of the reply brushes off legitimate concerns with “random Americans with no education about finances.” While Riot’s perspective and financial strategies make sense from a business standpoint, dismissing grassroots concerns entirely feels out of touch with the player base and community that drives the esports scene.